Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :

  • 1132 Replies
  • 192728 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile


There is thus no problem at all : all interpretations of QM have been just imaginary attempts to solve the imaginary interpretation problem in QM thus , just delusions based on illusions lol .

Thyat's it. Just a complicated way of saying what I said: you can't derive quantum mechanics from classical mechanics, but you can derive classical mechanics from quantum mechanics. The mystery, problem, call it what you will, is a result of starting from the wrong end of the microscope.
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile

Standard or mainstream neuroscience says that consciousness vanishes whenever we go to sleep and comes back whenever we wake up , the contemplative cognitive science says otherwise : see above .


Well, it depends on how you are defining consciousness or what level of consciousness you are referring to, lol. Some animals can even sleep half of their brain at a time.

Generally people are not very conscious of their surroundings while asleep, although a door slamming, a baby crying, or an alarm, wakes them up, so they can't be 100% cut off from sensory input, although this is likely subconscious monitoring, (which also goes on while awake.)  But dreams have qualia, so if qualia production or experience is considered a conscious element, then there is consciousness, at least intermittently, while asleep, but it is, for most, a very different experience than it is while awake. 

You seem to be setting up another strawman argument that neuroscience doesn't make. Nevertheless, sleep is an interesting topic. It's curious that the qualia of dreams is midway in vividness between the sensory qualia and the qualia of awake imagination. There would also seem to be less communication with parts of the brain that evaluate whether experiences or ideas violate our expectations or factual knowledge, and often the images or events in dreams are only bizarre after we wake up and think about them.


« Last Edit: 07/01/2015 01:08:39 by cheryl j »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Sleep is a fascinating topic, but I would be wary of cherry-picking and creatively interpreting the introspective analyses of Eastern meditative traditions for their similarity to knowledge obtained from sleep research and neuroscience. When intelligent people think and introspect about such phenomena they may come up with close or analogous descriptions to what controlled experiment tells us, or they may not - as is conceded in the posted excerpts. These traditions may have interesting suggestions for the basis of testable hypotheses, but although some apparent correlations with contemporary science may be interesting, they are no guide to the reliability or utility of the traditions or their techniques in understanding what is occurring during sleep.

For example, the same kind of exercise can be done comparing a variety of creation myths with cosmology (e.g. big bang theory, planetary formation, etc.) and, with some flexible interpretation, some seemingly strong correlations can be made with modern theory.

However, this kind of flexible interpretation with informed hindsight is an ideal context for the influence of confirmation bias. Caution is advised - look out for interpretive 'tells' such as, 'what they are saying is...', 'what they mean is...', 'this is analogous to...', 'this correlates with...', and so-on. These should be viewed with a critical eye.

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile

Standard or mainstream neuroscience says that consciousness vanishes whenever we go to sleep and comes back whenever we wake up , the contemplative cognitive science says otherwise : see above .

Well, it depends on how you are defining consciousness or what level of consciousness you are referring to, lol.
Exactly. It's yet another straw man - 'standard or mainstream' neuroscience says no such thing. General discussions of unqualified consciousness typically refer to alert and responsive wakefulness (as mediated by the reticular activating system), but many neuroscience studies and papers involve qualified forms or levels of consciousness, including consciousness during sleep (for example, Consciousness During Waking and Dreaming, Lucid dreaming: a state of consciousness with features of both waking and non-lucid dreaming, Waking and dreaming consciousness, etc).
« Last Edit: 07/01/2015 11:28:28 by dlorde »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile

Philosopher John Searle agrees: “Consciousness consists of inner, qualitative, subjective states and processes of sentience or awareness. Consciousness, so defined, begins when we wake in the morning from a dreamless sleep and continues until we fall asleep again, die, go into a coma, or otherwise become ‘unconscious.’”
From the Indian and Tibetan contemplative perspectives, however, these descriptions are inaccurate.

Although object-directed consciousness becomes progressively less and less as we move from waking or dreaming into deep and dreamless sleep, awareness or sentience continues.


For Yoga and Vedānta, whereas dreaming is a form of object-directed consciousness—the objects in dreams being mental images—dreamless sleep is a mode of consciousness without an object.


Similarly, according to Tibetan Buddhism, deep sleep is a state of “subtle consciousness” without sensory or cognitive content, and it’s the basis upon which dreaming and waking consciousness arise.



I agree with dlorde's comment about cherry picking comparisons between ancient areas of knowledge and science.

But as far as simply describing the experience of sleep for most people, I don't see the huge discrepancy that Don is claiming exists. They both say that people become less conscious of their surroundings, and in dreamless sleep there is a kind of minimal consciousness of any sensory information, internal imaginings, or other "thing" being attended to.

It just  raises more doubts about the idea of  immaterial consciousness itself, that without external and internal sensation and things to be conscious of, or think about, consciousness is tenuous, if it doesn't entirely vanish.

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile
Excerpt from the same above mentioned book and chapter :

Quote : " REMEMBERING IN SLEEP:

Although Yoga and Vedānta share the view that deep sleep is a state of consciousness, they differ in their conceptions of what happens to the mind in deep and dreamless sleep.According to Yoga, deep sleep is one of the changing states of the inner mental sense, so cognitive activity, particularly the formation of memories, continues. According to Vedānta, however, the inner mental sense shuts down entirely in deep sleep and reactivates upon awakening. How does this difference between Yoga and Vedānta look from the perspective of Western sleep science?.

If we set aside the question of consciousness in deep sleep and restrict the question to whether memory processes are active, the answer from science is unequivocal: memory processes are highly active in slow-wave sleep. Evidence from psychology and neuroscience clearly shows that slow-wave sleep promotes the formation of stable memories of events that were consciously experienced earlier when awake.

One recent experiment took advantage of the strong effect of smell on memory—the way that particular smells can trigger vivid memories, the most famous example being Proust’s description of the way the smell and taste of a madeleine dipped in tea brought back to life his narrator’s long-forgotten childhood world in the French village of Combray. In the experiment, the subjects learned locations in a spatial memory task while being exposed to the scent of roses. The scent was presented again while
the subjects were in slow-wave sleep that night. Compared to the control condition where the scent wasn’t presented again during sleep, the presentation during slow-wave sleep resulted in significantly improved recall of the locations in the task on the following day.

Interesting experiment. As I said, a sleeping person is not cut off from sensory monitoring or subconscious processing. These results make more sense from a neurological point of view, than with your immaterial brain theory. 

Quote
In addition, the presentation of the scent during sleep resulted in significant activation in the hippocampus, a subcortical structure known to be crucial for the formation and recall of memories for experienced events.
This study built on other ones showing that the same neural networks in the hippocampus that are activated in the acquisition of new memories during waking life are reactivated in slow-wave sleep

And what does this tell you?

Quote
For example, studies in rats have shown that when they learn their way in a maze, neurons in the hippocampus that fire in response to specific places—so-called hippocampal place cells—fire in the same order during subsequent slow-wave sleep, a phenomenon known as “hippocampal replay.”......

(rest of excerpt deleted but relevant) 


I don't have time to fact check all of this. But everything in the excerpt looks like neurological explanations for experiences described in Eastern practices. It's not a  Chris Carter-like antagonistic or argumentative attempt to prove that neuroscience is some how all wrong. But if this helps your understanding of things, I'm delighted.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile

It dépends on how one (mis ) interprets that through one's own a-priori held world view that does shape one's own consciousness and behavior , ironically enough lol : you're talking from the materialist point of view thus , by basing all your arguments and conclusions on that major false materialistic premise, in the sense that consciousness and the mind +their memories and the rest are just brain activity ,for example, and hence memory is stored in the brain ....


And you're talking from the theist point of view, basing all of your arguments and conclusions on the untestable and scientifically unsubstantiated belief in souls. Your "indirect empirical evidence" is not actually any evidence at all, but simply complaints about what you feel is not adequately explained by science, and utter disregard for everything that is.

Once again , I am not religiously motivated in all of this , i just follow the evidence that tells me that materialism is false , mainly because it can intrinsically never account for consciousness ,let alone for its related anomalies , and hence consciousness cannot be a material process , can neither be reduced to nor equated with brain activity , let alone that it can emerge from brain activity  , form biology or from the biological evolution, not to mention that consciousness as a so-called integrated information does also hold no water whatsoever as my recent first excerpt from Evan Thompson's book explained ... .

Furthermore , Libet ,for example , to mention just that one , was so a visionary and a revolutionary neuroscientist as to dare go beyond positivism and behaviorism by including the first hand reports of subjective experiences as valid evidence in his scientific study or work regarding consciousness and its physical brain .

The above displayed excerpts of Thompson just extend the latter scientific approach to the level of the first hand reports of highly experienced meditation practitioners ,so what in Zeus ' name are you talking about then ?

Not to mention the works of non-materialist neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists on the subject , not to mention that of Popper and Nobel prize winner neuroscientist Eccles who argued for a separate soul in their co-authored book "The self and its brain ..." ......

In short :

There is absolutely nothing intrinsic in the naturalist science or in its naturalist epistemology or in its naturalist methodology that do go beyond materialism that prevents it from exploring the existence of souls , spirits or whatever .
« Last Edit: 07/01/2015 17:53:28 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile


There is thus no problem at all : all interpretations of QM have been just imaginary attempts to solve the imaginary interpretation problem in QM thus , just delusions based on illusions lol .

Thyat's it. Just a complicated way of saying what I said: you can't derive quantum mechanics from classical mechanics, but you can derive classical mechanics from quantum mechanics. The mystery, problem, call it what you will, is a result of starting from the wrong end of the microscope.

Try to explain the double slit experiment then : a Nobel prize is waiting for you , genius .
Stop living in denial regarding the interpretation observation or measurement problem in QM .

There is a problem , a big one , hallooo : that started from the very inception of QM and is still a big issue up to this sec and counting :see all those competing interpretations of QM out there that have been trying to solve the interpretation problem in QM, in vain so far ...

Not to mention Bell's theorem and its related experiments that did challenge classical determinism, classical locality and classical realism as well ...

Welcome to the "real " world, Alice  .

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg448148#msg448148 date=1420641707]

Philosopher John Searle agrees: “Consciousness consists of inner, qualitative, subjective states and processes of sentience or awareness. Consciousness, so defined, begins when we wake in the morning from a dreamless sleep and continues until we fall asleep again, die, go into a coma, or otherwise become ‘unconscious.’”
From the Indian and Tibetan contemplative perspectives, however, these descriptions are inaccurate.

Although object-directed consciousness becomes progressively less and less as we move from waking or dreaming into deep and dreamless sleep, awareness or sentience continues.


For Yoga and Vedānta, whereas dreaming is a form of object-directed consciousness—the objects in dreams being mental images—dreamless sleep is a mode of consciousness without an object.


Similarly, according to Tibetan Buddhism, deep sleep is a state of “subtle consciousness” without sensory or cognitive content, and it’s the basis upon which dreaming and waking consciousness arise.



I agree with dlorde's comment about cherry picking comparisons between ancient areas of knowledge and science.

There was no cherry picking : you can't tell what Thompson talked about in the rest of his book in question , can you ?

Use your own mind and be independent and free -minded enough as to stop repeating what dlorde or others for that matter say,without thinking .

Quote
But as far as simply describing the experience of sleep for most people, I don't see the huge discrepancy that Don is claiming exists. They both say that people become less conscious of their surroundings, and in dreamless sleep there is a kind of minimal consciousness of any sensory information, internal imaginings, or other "thing" being attended to.

Try to understand what you quote , first :

Quote : "...
For Yoga and Vedānta, whereas dreaming is a form of object-directed consciousness—the objects in dreams being mental images—dreamless sleep is a mode of consciousness without an object.


Similarly, according to Tibetan Buddhism, deep sleep is a state of “subtle consciousness” without sensory or cognitive content, and it’s the basis upon which dreaming and waking consciousness arise.
" End quote .

Can you be conscious or aware of your surroundings when sleeping , dreaming or when you are in the deep dreamless sleep state ?

Furthermore , waking , dreaming , deep dreamless sleep state at least do represent different modes of consciousness : the sensory perceptual awake one is what can be called the gross one ,and the more you get deeper in sleep , the more subtle the mode of consciousness or awareness gets .....

It all depends thus on what kind of consciousness or awareness are you talking about .


Quote
It just  raises more doubts about the idea of  immaterial consciousness itself, that without external and internal sensation and things to be conscious of, or think about, consciousness is tenuous, if it doesn't entirely vanish.

No, it doesn't .The fact that consciousness is no material process is an unequivocal one (all materialist theories of consciousness are untestable and false , together with materialism itself ) .

That some forms or modes of consciousness or awareness have to work through their  physical brain or that they  interact or correlate with it, or that they  depend on it ,  is no evidence for  the false materialist claims on the subject , on the contrary .

Quote : " ...whereas dreaming is a form of object-directed consciousness—the objects in dreams being mental images—dreamless sleep is a mode of consciousness without an object...." ...deep sleep is a state of “subtle consciousness” without sensory or cognitive content... End quote.

The deep dreamless sleep state might even not depend on the brain since deep sleep is a state of “subtle consciousness” without sensory or cognitive content  , and there are also higher forms of consciousness like pure awareness and beyond where the sense of the self dissolves that might not need no brain either to exist .

Do not confuse access consciousness and phenomenal consciousness which  are both sensory perceptual ones with the more subtle and "basic" forms of consciousness and awareness thus .
« Last Edit: 07/01/2015 19:15:09 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg448162#msg448162 date=1420650708]
Excerpt from the same above mentioned book and chapter :

Quote : " REMEMBERING IN SLEEP:

Although Yoga and Vedānta share the view that deep sleep is a state of consciousness, they differ in their conceptions of what happens to the mind in deep and dreamless sleep.According to Yoga, deep sleep is one of the changing states of the inner mental sense, so cognitive activity, particularly the formation of memories, continues. According to Vedānta, however, the inner mental sense shuts down entirely in deep sleep and reactivates upon awakening. How does this difference between Yoga and Vedānta look from the perspective of Western sleep science?.

If we set aside the question of consciousness in deep sleep and restrict the question to whether memory processes are active, the answer from science is unequivocal: memory processes are highly active in slow-wave sleep. Evidence from psychology and neuroscience clearly shows that slow-wave sleep promotes the formation of stable memories of events that were consciously experienced earlier when awake.

One recent experiment took advantage of the strong effect of smell on memory—the way that particular smells can trigger vivid memories, the most famous example being Proust’s description of the way the smell and taste of a madeleine dipped in tea brought back to life his narrator’s long-forgotten childhood world in the French village of Combray. In the experiment, the subjects learned locations in a spatial memory task while being exposed to the scent of roses. The scent was presented again while
the subjects were in slow-wave sleep that night. Compared to the control condition where the scent wasn’t presented again during sleep, the presentation during slow-wave sleep resulted in significantly improved recall of the locations in the task on the following day.

Interesting experiment. As I said, a sleeping person is not cut off from sensory monitoring or subconscious processing. These results make more sense from a neurological point of view, than with your immaterial brain theory. 

Thompson just tries to show through that experiment and more that memory gets activated at the level of deep dreamless sleep and hence proves  that the claims of some highly experienced meditation practitioners that they can train their minds through meditation as to be able to remember their deep dreamless sleep state is accurate .

Deep dreamless sleep state that's an alleged mode of consciousness without object ,mental images or sensory content .

Furthermore , how can the "content" of  deep dreamless sleep  state in the above mentioned sense thus depend on the physical brain ? if we except the memory part of it that's not accessible to ordinary people .

Thompson talks thus about the non-materialist contemplative cognitive science ,if you haven't noticed just that yet .

Quote
Quote
In addition, the presentation of the scent during sleep resulted in significant activation in the hippocampus, a subcortical structure known to be crucial for the formation and recall of memories for experienced events.
This study built on other ones showing that the same neural networks in the hippocampus that are activated in the acquisition of new memories during waking life are reactivated in slow-wave sleep

And what does this tell you?

See above .

Quote
Quote
For example, studies in rats have shown that when they learn their way in a maze, neurons in the hippocampus that fire in response to specific places—so-called hippocampal place cells—fire in the same order during subsequent slow-wave sleep, a phenomenon known as “hippocampal replay.”......

(rest of excerpt deleted but relevant) 


I don't have time to fact check all of this. But everything in the excerpt looks like neurological explanations for experiences described in Eastern practices. It's not a  Chris Carter-like antagonistic or argumentative attempt to prove that neuroscience is some how all wrong. But if this helps your understanding of things, I'm delighted.

That's the non-materialist contemplative science at work , lady .

Here is a summary of the book from amazon.com :

Quote : "A renowned philosopher of the mind, also known for his groundbreaking work on Buddhism and cognitive science, Evan Thompson combines the latest neuroscience research on sleep, dreaming, and meditation with Indian and Western philosophy of the mind, casting new light on the self and its relation to the brain.

Thompson shows how the self is a changing process, not a static thing. When we are awake we identify with our body, but if we let our mind wander or daydream, we project a mentally imagined self into the remembered past or anticipated future. As we fall asleep, the impression of being a bounded self distinct from the world dissolves, but the self reappears in the dream state. If we have a lucid dream, we no longer identify only with the self within the dream. Our sense of self now includes our dreaming self, the "I" as dreamer. Finally, as we meditate--either in the waking state or in a lucid dream--we can observe whatever images or thoughts arise and how we tend to identify with them as "me." We can also experience sheer awareness itself, distinct from the changing contents that make up our image of the self.

Contemplative traditions say that we can learn to let go of the self, so that when we die we can witness its dissolution with equanimity. Thompson weaves together neuroscience, philosophy, and personal narrative to depict these transformations, adding uncommon depth to life's profound questions. Contemplative experience comes to illuminate scientific findings, and scientific evidence enriches the vast knowledge acquired by contemplatives
.." End quote.

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Sleep is a fascinating topic, but I would be wary of cherry-picking and creatively interpreting the introspective analyses of Eastern meditative traditions for their similarity to knowledge obtained from sleep research and neuroscience. When intelligent people think and introspect about such phenomena they may come up with close or analogous descriptions to what controlled experiment tells us, or they may not - as is conceded in the posted excerpts. These traditions may have interesting suggestions for the basis of testable hypotheses, but although some apparent correlations with contemporary science may be interesting, they are no guide to the reliability or utility of the traditions or their techniques in understanding what is occurring during sleep.

For example, the same kind of exercise can be done comparing a variety of creation myths with cosmology (e.g. big bang theory, planetary formation, etc.) and, with some flexible interpretation, some seemingly strong correlations can be made with modern theory.

However, this kind of flexible interpretation with informed hindsight is an ideal context for the influence of confirmation bias. Caution is advised - look out for interpretive 'tells' such as, 'what they are saying is...', 'what they mean is...', 'this is analogous to...', 'this correlates with...', and so-on. These should be viewed with a critical eye.

Sleep is a fascinating topic indeed , especially the  dream sleep and the lucid dream sleep .

The deep dreamless sleep state ( a state without sensory or cognitive content,without object thus  ) that seems to be a subtle , basic or 'seed " form or mode of consciousness is even more interesting indeed .

There is thus no harm in exploring what ancient wisdom has to say on the subject , and we should do that with caution indeed , in the form of including the first hand reports of subjective experiences at the level of those sleep states and at the level of higher or subtle forms  of consciousness that can be reached by highly experienced meditation practitioners or other mystics in the scientific study of consciousness and its brain .

The non-materialist contemplative cognitive science does just that .

Libet , for example, was a visionary and a revolutionary enough a neuroscientist as  to  include the first hand reports of subjective experiences at the level of the awake ordinary sensory perceptual  consciousness in his scientific study of consciousness and its brain  , so, why not extend that as to encompass the first hand subjective reports of highly experienced meditation practitioners and other mystics  like the contemplative cognitive science does at the sleep levels as well as beyond that  ...?  to see whether or not they are accurate .

By the way : I have just downloaded a certain movie ( Inception 2010 movie )  regarding how one can "hack " the nervous system or the subconscious and dreams of people as to implant the images and ideas they want to serve their own purposes : sounds entertaining :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception 

The subliminal mind control has already been (mis) used by marketing , by politics and other criminals as to manipulate the thoughts and behaviors of people in unethical ways of course , unfortunately enough ,so one should know about all that and more .

Contemplative cognitive science can even discover more interesting things beyond all that for the benefit of all mankind and for that of science as well .

P.S.: There can be  no real universal or cosmopolitan fruits or breakthroughs regarding consciousness and its brain at least that would be coming from the sterile cultural Eurocentric ethnocentric and egocentric exclusive false materialist belief or world view  in that regard thus that excludes , by definition , any other world views , thoughtstreams,cultures, beliefs ,  or ancient wisdom from the "equation " a-priori thus ,as if the false materialist belief  has some sort of exclusive monopoly on  "the truth " lol  .

Materialism that's just a world view thus a , a belief , a false one at that that is , an ideology , a 19th century outdated and superseded conception of nature , so why  should science not try to learn from other beliefs , world views , thoughtstreams , cultures .....scientifically like the contemplative cognitive science does , instead of a priori excluding them .

Science that's not about materialism or any other ism ,but rather all about methodology and epistemology , the naturalist ones that do go beyond materialism, which means that there is nothing intrinsic in naturalist science , in its naturalist methodology or in its naturalist epistemology that prevents it from exploring all possibilities and fields of human knowledge , experience and wisdom  .



« Last Edit: 07/01/2015 20:53:53 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Guys :

No time left for the rest of your posts ,but for the following very quickly then, as follows :

I have been exploring many views and theories of consciousness and its brain , including the materialist ones thus , including those of the so-called contemplative cognitive science ,even though i do not share many views of Buddhism  or Hinduism , for example , and even though i do disagree with the 'biological basis " of consciousness that has been promoted by the above mentioned contemplative cognitive science ,as i have been talking to you about what Thompson has been saying through his above displayed posted excerpts and through my own comments on them .

Try to address what Thompson has been saying thus ,instead of making it sound as if i have been the one saying that lol, and as if i have been some sort of Buddhist jesuit of some sort lol who tries to promote Buddhism or any other ism for that matter  .

Take a look at the following too while you are at it , it 's good to try to explore all man's knowledge , wisdom and experiences , the ancient and the modern ones alike , in a scientific manner ,so don't confine yourself , your consciousness or mind just within your materialist belief :

Even science itself cannot but reveal what is revealed by consciousness and the mind through the scientific method ,science that cannot exist without  consciousness and the mind   .We can't step outside of consciousness to study it either .We have to accept the fact that all what we can know , experience , feel, taste , smell, imagine , create , make , think ,do or do not  ....cannot but be revealed by consciousness  awareness and the mind ...through their mutual interactions with the physical brain body and with the rest of their environment .

http://therealjeffhall.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/fields-of-consciousness.html

Beware of the many forms of scientism that's no science either (The reductionist exclusive cultural Eurocentric ethnocentric egocentric lol materialism is the worst kind of scientism in fact,and the most exclusive and narrow-minded of them all as well  )  , while you are at it :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
« Last Edit: 07/01/2015 21:27:48 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile
What point do you want addressed. i don't have a problem with meditation, buddhist philosophical practices. The dalai Lama isn't hostile towards neuroscience and invites scientists to come and study meditating monks.

Vegetative comas and end stage Alzheimers are also forms of  "consciousness without content". I'm not sure I'd want to spend eternity in that state, whether it feels all "subtle" or not. But that's just my preference.
« Last Edit: 07/01/2015 21:53:05 by cheryl j »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg448181#msg448181 date=1420667226]
What point do you want addressed. i don't have a problem with meditation, buddhist philosophical practices. The dalai Lama isn't hostile towards neuroscience and invites scientists to come and study meditating monks.

What were we talking about then ? See above .

I just wanted to let you know about the so-called contemplative cognitive science , if you happened not to have heard of  or read about it ,through Thompson's book in question, and hence show you that the first hand subjective reports of highly experienced meditation practitioners and their related ancient wisdom can enrich cognitive science and vice versa ,since science  is not the only valid source of knowledge .

Those sleep , dream sleep , lucid dream  sleep , and  dreamless sleep states are really fascinating ,so .

Who is hostile to neuroscience anyway ?  The latter is still in its primitive or infancy stage ,relatively speaking , despite the bombastic talk of mainstream neuroscience .

We don't even know nearly enough regarding the brain itself, let alone regarding consciousness, not to mention that we don't know much about the unconscious or subconscious and its role in waking and sleep states either  .

Quote
Vegetative comas and end stage Alzheimers are also forms of  "consciousness without content". I'm not sure I'd want to spend eternity in that state, whether it feels all "subtle" or not. But that's just my preference.

Vegetative states and Alzheimer are also forms of consciousness without content ? What makes you say that ? Odd .

Like the deep dreamless sleep state is ?

Deep dreamless sleep state is allegedly without either sensory or cognitive content , without object thus,that's why we ordinary people can't remember it , although it is possible to remember it through mind training or meditation ....since memory gets activated at that level too  .

Vegetative patients ,for example, can respond to certain commands or instructions of scientists when asked to imagine playing tennis or doing some other activity ,and hence scientists see that the corresponding neural correlates get activated exactly like in the case of healthy patients : that's no consciousness without content .

Not to mention Alzheimer patients .

« Last Edit: 08/01/2015 18:27:46 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Vegetative patients ,for example, can respond to certain commands or instructions of scientists when asked to imagine playing tennis or doing some other activity ,and hence scientists see that the corresponding neural correlates get activated exactly like in the case of healthy patients : that's no consciousness without content .
You're describing 'Locked-in Syndrome', a non-vegetative state.

Around 60% vegetative patients are in PVS (Persistent Vegetative State) and show no signs of consciousness (abnormal EEG, no characteristic P3 wave, etc), typically due to permanent damage to the brainstem. The other 40% are known as MCS (Minimally Conscious State), and may show some correlates of consciousness, and may recover to varying degrees.

Vegetative patients are a subset of those in a coma, and it is a small number of non-vegetative coma patients that have Locked-in Syndrome (effectively a complete paralysis of voluntary movement but with a full repertoire of conscious mental states). These are the patients who can communicate by imagining activities. These patients may have been misdiagnosed as vegetative, but turn out not to be so. 
« Last Edit: 08/01/2015 19:15:55 by dlorde »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile


Who is hostile to neuroscience anyway ?  The latter is still in its primitive or infancy stage ,relatively speaking , despite the bombastic talk of mainstream neuroscience .

We don't even know nearly enough regarding the brain itself, let alone regarding consciousness, not to mention that we don't know much about the unconscious or subconscious and its role in waking and sleep states either  .



How can you be so sure that we "don't know that much about" consciousness? In stead of jumping from one general theory to another that purports to "explain everything" in one full swoop, consider this option: Take one specific area of consciousness or mental activity that interests you - episodic memory, or working memory, or visual perception and its qualia, or dreams, or attention, or language, one type of skill or ability like planning, or  search/recognition -whatever interests you. Take a few weeks to research it, from as many different angles or sources as you can, but try to stay with that more narrow topic. I think you'll find that a lot more is known than you expected, in much greater detail than you imagined, and with unexpected associations to other things. If you did that, I think you'd find that it isn't all "bombastic talk."

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Vegetative patients ,for example, can respond to certain commands or instructions of scientists when asked to imagine playing tennis or doing some other activity ,and hence scientists see that the corresponding neural correlates get activated exactly like in the case of healthy patients : that's no consciousness without content .
You're describing 'Locked-in Syndrome', a non-vegetative state.

Around 60% vegetative patients are in PVS (Persistent Vegetative State) and show no signs of consciousness (abnormal EEG, no characteristic P3 wave, etc), typically due to permanent damage to the brainstem. The other 40% are known as MCS (Minimally Conscious State), and may show some correlates of consciousness, and may recover to varying degrees.

Vegetative patients are a subset of those in a coma, and it is a small number of non-vegetative coma patients that have Locked-in Syndrome (effectively a complete paralysis of voluntary movement but with a full repertoire of conscious mental states). These are the patients who can communicate by imagining activities. These patients may have been misdiagnosed as vegetative, but turn out not to be so.

Ok, but what makes you so sure about those 60 % vegetative patients who seem to show no signs of consciousness ? They might experience some undetected yet minimal forms of consciousness too , who knows ?

As  technology advances , neuroscientists might detect the latter,who knows ?  .

Vegetative patients may be more conscious of the world than we think:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/vegetative-patients-may-be-more-conscious-of-the-world-than-we-think-9799650.html


https://www.google.com/search?q=vegetative+patients+show+signs+of+consc&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8


'Hidden' consciousness found in vegetative patients :

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life-style/health-fitness/health/Hidden-consciousness-found-in-vegetative-patients/articleshow/44851317.cms

A patient in a vegetative state has been shown to ‘pay attention' to sounds :

http://www.iflscience.com/brain/patient-vegetative-state-has-been-shown-%E2%80%98pay-attention-sounds


Signs of Consciousness in Vegetative Patients? :


http://philosophyofbrains.com/2006/09/08/signs-of-consciousness-in-vegetative-patients.aspx

P.S.: In another context , A cousin of mine who was healthy and then pronounced dead , was almost buried 3 times .
Every time they tried to bury the poor lad , i was told , ( He lives in another country far away from mine ) , he would show signs of life at almost the last moment .

He even started to scream once , i was told , when they were ready to put his coffin into the grave .

He's dead now for the fourth and last time,so to speak  .

Maybe , he was not really dead the last time too , who knows ? But they did everything they could to be sure of his "last" death .

« Last Edit: 08/01/2015 21:03:04 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile


Who is hostile to neuroscience anyway ?  The latter is still in its primitive or infancy stage ,relatively speaking , despite the bombastic talk of mainstream neuroscience .

We don't even know nearly enough regarding the brain itself, let alone regarding consciousness, not to mention that we don't know much about the unconscious or subconscious and its role in waking and sleep states either  .



How can you be so sure that we "don't know that much about" consciousness? In stead of jumping from one general theory to another that purports to "explain everything" in one full swoop, consider this option: Take one specific area of consciousness or mental activity that interests you - episodic memory, or working memory, or visual perception and its qualia, or dreams, or attention, or language, one type of skill or ability like planning, or  search/recognition -whatever interests you. Take a few weeks to research it, from as many different angles or sources as you can, but try to stay with that more narrow topic. I think you'll find that a lot more is known than you expected, in much greater detail than you imagined, and with unexpected associations to other things. If you did that, I think you'd find that it isn't all "bombastic talk."

Even prominent neuroscientists cannot but admit that they still  do not know much about the physical brain , let alone about the mind, not even remotely close thus  : even the decade of the brain is still in its infancy stage and might deliver just what the human genome project did ,for example , despite both their bombastic talks .

As for consciousness , no single theory of consciousness can pretend to be really scientific , not even remotely close thus .

And since consciousness is still a big mystery , then none of all the interpretations of QM ,for example, can pretend to be scientific either .

Scientific humility cannot but dictate its terms regarding the above .

Besides, looking for the mind and consciousness , memories ....in the brain , equating them with or reducing them to the physical activity of the brain is an absurd and a  futile dead -end street or attempt , since consciousness and the mind +their related processes are neither in the brain , neither brain activity , nor that they can emerge from it , to say the least thus .


P.S.: What makes you think i haven't done your above "recommended" stuff ? and more .

furthermore , extrasensory perception like telepathy , remote viewing and other psi-phenomena + the effects of placebo/nocebo , the mindful trained informed effects of meditation, mindfulness ,the trained mindful informed self-directed neuroplasticity + our human ability to control the autonomic nervous system and more  via the mindful trained informed biofeedback ....are evidence enough for the fact that consciousness is a separate non-local and non-physical process .

NDE ,for example, together with the out of body experiences are not relevant in this context .

Consciousness might be a separate non-local and non -physical field of some sort , who knows?,that acts from outside of space and time and hence , does not obey any laws of physics , even thought some forms of consciousness are dependent on the brain and the senses  : (Don't confuse that with Libet's conscious mental field theory that considers consciousness as just some sort of emergent property or just like electromagnetic fields lol ) :

http://therealjeffhall.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/fields-of-consciousness.html

« Last Edit: 08/01/2015 21:36:38 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Ok, but what makes you so sure about those 60 % vegetative patients who seem to show no signs of consciousness ? They might experience some undetected yet minimal forms of consciousness too , who knows ?
The figures I gave are the current best approximation. I'm not going to argue definitions of consciousness, but in neurological terms, those vegetative patients with reticular brain stem damage cannot become conscious because that area controls all higher level arousal activity, including consciousness. Neither can those with certain high level cortical damage, or permanent axonal damage that impairs wide area connectivity. If you accept the evidence that consciousness awareness involves wide area rather than purely local activity of the brain, Stanislas Dehaene's techniques for elicitation of the characteristic P3 wave can positively determine conscious awareness for all patients (even for those in partial or total sensory isolation, tanscranial magnetic stimulation can be used). For those that show no global activation, consciousness, as generally recognised, doesn't occur. Dehaene has found patients whose RAS arousal level was just too low for consciousness, and used TMS to temporarily boost it so they became conscious, but to provide them with continuous consciousness would require some kind of stimulatory implant; near-future technology. This kind of empirical evidence provides some confidence that at least the gross functionality of the systems involved have been understood.

Quote
Vegetative patients may be more conscious of the world than we think:
Yes; this is the difference between the commonly accepted definition of the condition, and the clinical diagnosis of the condition. Those who demonstrate conscious activity have been misdiagnosed as vegetative (according to Dehaene's usage).

Quote
P.S.: In another context , A cousin of mine who was healthy and then pronounced dead , was almost buried 3 times .
Every time they tried to bury the poor lad , i was told , ( He lives in another country far away from mine ) , he would show signs of life at almost the last moment .

He even started to scream once , i was told , when they were ready to put his coffin into the grave .
It's possible, although unlikely (to paraphrase Lady Bracknell, once would be unfortunate, twice looks like incompetence, and three times smacks of fiction). But, if true, it would be another example of misdiagnosis - the diagnosis of clinical death not corresponding to the patient's actual condition.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2015 23:46:17 by dlorde »

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile


Besides, looking for the mind and consciousness , memories ....in the brain , equating them with or reducing them to the physical activity of the brain is an absurd and a  futile dead -end street or attempt , since consciousness and the mind +their related processes are neither in the brain , neither brain activity , nor that they can emerge from it , to say the least thus .


P.S.: What makes you think i haven't done your above "recommended" stuff ? and more .



What makes me think that is the sentence above. If you start out with the assumption that the brain is no more than blinking indicator lights on the dash board of your vehicle, you are not likely to investigate what scientists say about how the brain functions, or even, working from your theory, "contributes" to mental. Consequently, you will  dismiss it as not very important or worth learning about in any great detail.

Although you often retreat and dig in your heels about the immaterial mind and souls, more and more I notice your excerpts contain references to neuroscience and things that the brain actually does - and not simply as a "transceiver" or interface with immaterial realm, but as the responsible agent for these functions. So you can either ignore all of neuroscience and be satisfied with "who knows how the mind and brain interact thus" or keep going.


« Last Edit: 10/01/2015 02:37:08 by cheryl j »

*

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4816
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
A last word from me on quantum "enigmas" before I leave this discussion.

We have known for over 100 years that you can't predict quantum phenomena from classical physics, but the elementary test of a quantum hypothesis is that it must scale up to a macroscopic observation. (The jury is still out on gravity, admittedly, but I think we are getting there).

So instead of pretending that the double slit experiment is a mystery, we should start with wave functions and derive classical physics.

Every particle has an associated wave function, the square of which is the probability of finding it at a point in space. So if we set up double-slit experiment, we will see the transform of the pair of slits in terms of the particle wavelength. Which we do. Now if we close one slit, we see the transform of one slit (a sort of Gaussian with a single peak), and if we interpose  any other sieve such as a zone plate or an annulus, we will see its transform - which we do.

Fine. So how does this relate to classical physics? Let's look at throwing dice.

The wave function of one die is such that it can yield any number from 1 to 6 with equal probability. So we can't predict the outcome of one throw but if we throw it a zillion times, the average throw will obviously be (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 3.5  Gamblers know this: "lucky 7" is the most probable throw of two dice. The most probable throw of n dice is 3.5 n, and the larger n gets, the less likely you are to get any other number. So if I have an avogadro of dice, I can confidently predict that the result of one throw will be 21.08 x 1023 with a very, very small error margin. In other words, the wave function of a large ensemble is very small in comparison with the size of the ensemble, and although I couldn't predict where one iron atom will be in a diffraction experiment, I can tell you pretty well exactly where to find a cannonball.

More to the point, I could study the number 21.08 x 1023  for ever and have absolutely no idea where it came from or how an iron atom will behave on its own, but there is no quantum enigma if you start with what we know now, instead of what our predecessors assumed.

Even more to the point, next time you meet a mug, invite him to an "advanced dice game". None of this two-dice kids' stuff, but the 6-dice game that the big boys play in the back room. Only rule is, 21 belongs to the house. You will make a fortune.

« Last Edit: 10/01/2015 08:14:38 by alancalverd »
helping to stem the tide of ignorance

*

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1281
    • View Profile
In other words, the wave function of a large ensemble is very small in comparison with the size of the ensemble, and although I couldn't predict where one iron atom will be in a diffraction experiment, I can tell you pretty well exactly where to find a cannonball.

More to the point, I could study the number 21.08 x 1023  for ever and have absolutely no idea where it came from or how an iron atom will behave on its own, but there is no quantum enigma if you start with what we know now, instead of what our predecessors assumed.


Excellent comments alan,...........There is no reason or advantage in making these questions any more complicated than the example alan has given us. Reality is; "What you can see thru experiment is what you got."

No mystery about consciousness either, it is the function of our neural network and nothing more.

I been following this thread for way too long now and have decided it is going nowhere, will go nowhere, and is no longer worth the effort. The author of this thread is unwilling to deal with realities and therefore, it is a waste of time to continue giving him examples of it. To date, absolutely no progress has been made regarding the issues involved regarding this debate and will continue to remain such because the question Don has raised doesn't deal with scientific fact, it's a question about philosophy and mysticism.

In summation, I applaud Alan's comments for they should bring clarity to the mind of the honest reader and also offer much respect to Delorde and Cheryl j as well for their intelligent contributions. Nevertheless, I have exhausted all confidence in Don's ability to separate fact from fiction and will make my exit from this thread as well.

Sir Don.................I respect your persistence and the energy you've applied to this effort. If you had only applied such an effort to a worthwhile endeavor you would have surely profited greatly from it. Nevertheless, in all truth, you're spinning your wheels my friend, this exercise of yours has no future.

Good luck to all...................................... 
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg448250#msg448250 date=1420760521]
Ok, but what makes you so sure about those 60 % vegetative patients who seem to show no signs of consciousness ? They might experience some undetected yet minimal forms of consciousness too , who knows ?
The figures I gave are the current best approximation. I'm not going to argue definitions of consciousness, but in neurological terms, those vegetative patients with reticular brain stem damage cannot become conscious because that area controls all higher level arousal activity, including consciousness. Neither can those with certain high level cortical damage, or permanent axonal damage that impairs wide area connectivity. If you accept the evidence that consciousness awareness involves wide area rather than purely local activity of the brain, Stanislas Dehaene's techniques for elicitation of the characteristic P3 wave can positively determine conscious awareness for all patients (even for those in partial or total sensory isolation, tanscranial magnetic stimulation can be used). For those that show no global activation, consciousness, as generally recognised, doesn't occur. Dehaene has found patients whose RAS arousal level was just too low for consciousness, and used TMS to temporarily boost it so they became conscious, but to provide them with continuous consciousness would require some kind of stimulatory implant; near-future technology. This kind of empirical evidence provides some confidence that at least the gross functionality of the systems involved have been understood.

Stanislas Dehaene's work is very interesting indeed ,to some extent at least, and i see not why future technology cannot come up with some sort of stimulatory implant , as you put it  , to boost the  consciousness of brain damaged or vegetative  patients.

But , Deheane's problem,as a materialist scientist ,  is that he assumes that when he and his team can map all brain regions involved in conscious or aware perception ,and hence discover all "signatures of consciousness " in the brain , then they would understand how consciousness works completely,as he so bombastically said in that book of his in question : "Consciousness and the brain , Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts " ,by assuming that consciousness ,the mind and all their related processes are in the brain  .

Dehaene then introduced what he called "Global neuronal workspace " hypothesis in Chapter 5  "Theorizing consciousness " ,in  his above mentioned book  ,as follows :

 Quote : "...to make sense of consciousness .The proposal is simple : consciousness is brain-wide information sharing .The human brain has developed efficient long distance networks, particularly in the prefrontal cortex , to select relevant information and disseminate it throughout the brain .Consciousness is an evolved device that allows us to attend to a piece of information and keep it active within this broadcasting system .Once the information is conscious , it can be flexibly routed to other areas according to our current goals.Thus we can name it , evaluate it , memorize it ,or use it to plan the future .Computer simulations of neural networks show that the global neuronal workspace hypothesis generates precisely the signatures that we see in experimental brain recordings .It can also explain why vast amounts of knowledge remain inaccessible to our consciousness ." End quote .

Well, of course computer simulations of those specific neural networks would show the same 'signatures " that he saw in experimental brain recordings lol , that's no evidence for his materialist false belief assumption or hypothesis that consciousness is generated by those specific neural networks : it's a bit like confusing music in CD's with the music itself lol

Nevertheless , Dehaene can't justify his extraordinary jump or leap from the neural correlates of consciousness or NCC to the latter itself , let alone that he could explain to us how consciousness or awareness occurs or arises from neurochemistry .


Besides, it has been proved by many experiments , like the binocular rivalry experiment ,that consciousness is not continuous but discontinuous (Binocular rivalry experiment has been used to be able to differentiate between the brain regions that are involved in conscious or aware perception and between the ones that are not , and hence to try to pinpoint exactly what specific regions of the brain are involved in conscious perception .) :  consciousness  works thus via gaps , or as lunatic Dennett said on the subject : " The discontinuity of consciousness is striking because of the apparent continuity of consciousness " .

Experiments involving experienced meditation practitioners proved  the  fact that meditation and mindfulness can also improve the power of focused attention of people by enabling them to voluntarily hold in place the  binocular rival images they choose to ....the same goes for the  dichotic listening task  experiment where different auditory stimuli are   presented simultaneously , one to each ear....

There are also many forms of waking consciousness , the phenomenal consciousness (the felt consciousness ) , access consciousness , the active and passive consciousness , the 'basic " consciousness, the life consciousness or sentience which is called by western philosophy of mind  "creature consciousness " that pertains to a whole subject of experience , not to the individual states of that subject ,self-consciousness that comes in different forms ...., to mention just those .Take your pick .

To pretend thus that neuroscientists  already understand how the sensory perceptual or gross consciousness or awareness are all about is a misguided and incorrect assumption .

Quote
Quote
Vegetative patients may be more conscious of the world than we think:
Yes; this is the difference between the commonly accepted definition of the condition, and the clinical diagnosis of the condition. Those who demonstrate conscious activity have been misdiagnosed as vegetative (according to Dehaene's usage).

Misdiagnosed ? So, Cambridge scientists conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients ? lol Come on .

Quote
Quote
P.S.: In another context , A cousin of mine who was healthy and then pronounced dead , was almost buried 3 times .
Every time they tried to bury the poor lad , i was told , ( He lives in another country far away from mine ) , he would show signs of life at almost the last moment .

He even started to scream once , i was told , when they were ready to put his coffin into the grave .
It's possible, although unlikely (to paraphrase Lady Bracknell, once would be unfortunate, twice looks like incompetence, and three times smacks of fiction). But, if true, it would be another example of misdiagnosis - the diagnosis of clinical death not corresponding to the patient's actual condition.

I concur . But , it did happen like i told you it did , unfortunately and unbelievably enough .It's hard to believe , but it was true , i was told at least .
« Last Edit: 10/01/2015 19:28:44 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile


Besides, looking for the mind and consciousness , memories ....in the brain , equating them with or reducing them to the physical activity of the brain is an absurd and a  futile dead -end street or attempt , since consciousness and the mind +their related processes are neither in the brain , neither brain activity , nor that they can emerge from it , to say the least thus .


P.S.: What makes you think i haven't done your above "recommended" stuff ? and more .



What makes me think that is the sentence above. If you start out with the assumption that the brain is no more than blinking indicator lights on the dash board of your vehicle, you are not likely to investigate what scientists say about how the brain functions, or even, working from your theory, "contributes" to mental. Consequently, you will  dismiss it as not very important or worth learning about in any great detail.

Although you often retreat and dig in your heels about the immaterial mind and souls, more and more I notice your excerpts contain references to neuroscience and things that the brain actually does - and not simply as a "transceiver" or interface with immaterial realm, but as the responsible agent for these functions. So you can either ignore all of neuroscience and be satisfied with "who knows how the mind and brain interact thus" or keep going.

We have already talked about the above , on way too many occasions .

I am not gonna be tired of repeating the following any time soon : until you get it ,hopefully ,for your own sake :

You're making many straw arguments : i do not reject the findings of neuroscience or the latter (Who would do that ? ) , just the materialist interprétations of neuroscience, just materialist neuroscience thus that reduces consciousness to just brain activity or equates the latter with the former .

I do not reject science in general either (who would do that ? ) , otherwise i would not be here , would i ? .

I just reject materialist science that reduces everything to just matter ,assumes that all is matter ,and hence assumes so falsely that everything can be explained just by material biological or physical processes , just by material , biological or physical causes  .....

That's by the way what this whole thread is all about ,if you haven't noticed just that yet : about a certain manifesto for a post-materialistic science that embraces both the material and the immaterial alike in nature .


Once again , consciousness , the mind and all their related processes ,including memory ....are neither in the brain nor are they brain activity , let alone that they can emerge either from biology or from the biological evolution , and hence they can neither be reduced to nor equated with their neural correlates or brain activity , let alone that they can emerge from it ,which means that materialism is false , simply and mainly because it can intrinsically never account for consciousness , let alone for its related anomalies ,and hence consciousness cannot be a material process = can neither be reduced to nor equated with brain activity , let alone that consciousness can amerge from either biology or from the biological evolution .

In other words :

All what materialist science has been telling us all about the origin of the universe , the nature of life , the origin of life , the evolution of life and much more must be questioned radically in accordance with all the above, not to mention the obvious fact that materialism should be kicked out of science , the sonner the better thus  .

What part of the above you can't understand then , Cheryl ?

« Last Edit: 10/01/2015 21:05:34 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
In other words, the wave function of a large ensemble is very small in comparison with the size of the ensemble, and although I couldn't predict where one iron atom will be in a diffraction experiment, I can tell you pretty well exactly where to find a cannonball.

More to the point, I could study the number 21.08 x 1023  for ever and have absolutely no idea where it came from or how an iron atom will behave on its own, but there is no quantum enigma if you start with what we know now, instead of what our predecessors assumed.


Excellent comments alan,...........There is no reason or advantage in making these questions any more complicated than the example alan has given us. Reality is; "What you can see thru experiment is what you got."

No mystery about consciousness either, it is the function of our neural network and nothing more.

I been following this thread for way too long now and have decided it is going nowhere, will go nowhere, and is no longer worth the effort. The author of this thread is unwilling to deal with realities and therefore, it is a waste of time to continue giving him examples of it. To date, absolutely no progress has been made regarding the issues involved regarding this debate and will continue to remain such because the question Don has raised doesn't deal with scientific fact, it's a question about philosophy and mysticism.

In summation, I applaud Alan's comments for they should bring clarity to the mind of the honest reader and also offer much respect to Delorde and Cheryl j as well for their intelligent contributions. Nevertheless, I have exhausted all confidence in Don's ability to separate fact from fiction and will make my exit from this thread as well.

Sir Don.................I respect your persistence and the energy you've applied to this effort. If you had only applied such an effort to a worthwhile endeavor you would have surely profited greatly from it. Nevertheless, in all truth, you're spinning your wheels my friend, this exercise of yours has no future.

Good luck to all......................................

lol

Sir Ethos : thanks for your concern and points of view anyway .

Science does not require or need materialism or any other ism for that matter, science is all about free inquiry that should be restricted by no ism or ideology like materialism  : science is all about methodology and epistemology , the naturalist ones .

There is nothing intrinsic in naturalist science ,in  its naturalist methodology and in its naturalist epistemology , that go beyond materialism,needless to add thus ,  that prevents it from exploring the existence of immaterial souls, spirits , aliens lol , or whatever .

And since materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness , let alone for its related anomalies , then consciousness cannot be a material process ,and the universe , including ourselves thus , cannot be just physical or material but also mental .The latter is irreducible to the former , cannot be equated with it or emerge from it either = the universe , including ourselves thus , cannot be explained by just material , biological or physical processes or causes ....not to mention the obvious fact that materialism should be kicked out of science , the sonner the better thus .

I think that you're smart enough as to be able to understand the simple above and much much more indeed.

Cheers.
« Last Edit: 10/01/2015 21:10:13 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I agree with you Ethos_ that there has been no substantive progress made in terms of the OP, and no prospect of any; nevertheless I've found it a useful source of educational references (especially from Cheryl - thanks Cheryl!).

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
I agree with you Ethos_ that there has been no substantive progress made in terms of the OP, and no prospect of any; nevertheless I've found it a useful source of educational references (especially from Cheryl - thanks Cheryl!).

Well, you should reject materialism if you wanna see some progress or if you wanna see science progress .The false materialism has just been holding science back by imprisoning it within its false prison ,and must be thus kicked out of science  ,the sonner the better .

Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg448250#msg448250 date=1420760521]
Ok, but what makes you so sure about those 60 % vegetative patients who seem to show no signs of consciousness ? They might experience some undetected yet minimal forms of consciousness too , who knows ?
The figures I gave are the current best approximation. I'm not going to argue definitions of consciousness, but in neurological terms, those vegetative patients with reticular brain stem damage cannot become conscious because that area controls all higher level arousal activity, including consciousness. Neither can those with certain high level cortical damage, or permanent axonal damage that impairs wide area connectivity. If you accept the evidence that consciousness awareness involves wide area rather than purely local activity of the brain, Stanislas Dehaene's techniques for elicitation of the characteristic P3 wave can positively determine conscious awareness for all patients (even for those in partial or total sensory isolation, tanscranial magnetic stimulation can be used). For those that show no global activation, consciousness, as generally recognised, doesn't occur. Dehaene has found patients whose RAS arousal level was just too low for consciousness, and used TMS to temporarily boost it so they became conscious, but to provide them with continuous consciousness would require some kind of stimulatory implant; near-future technology. This kind of empirical evidence provides some confidence that at least the gross functionality of the systems involved have been understood.

Stanislas Dehaene's work is very interesting indeed ,to some extent at least, and i see not why future technology cannot come up with some sort of stimulatory implant , as you put it  , to boost the  consciousness of brain damaged or vegetative  patients.

But , Deheane's problem,as a materialist scientist ,  is that he assumes that when he and his team can map all brain regions involved in conscious or aware perception ,and hence discover all "signatures of consciousness " in the brain , then they would understand how consciousness works completely,as he so bombastically said in that book of his in question : "Consciousness and the brain , Deciphering how the brain codes our thoughts " ,by assuming that consciousness ,the mind and all their related processes are in the brain  .

Dehaene then introduced what he called "Global neuronal workspace " hypothesis in Chapter 5  "Theorizing consciousness " ,in  his above mentioned book  ,as follows :

 Quote : "...to make sense of consciousness .The proposal is simple : consciousness is brain-wide information sharing .The human brain has developed efficient long distance networks, particularly in the prefrontal cortex , to select relevant information and disseminate it throughout the brain .Consciousness is an evolved device that allows us to attend to a piece of information and keep it active within this broadcasting system .Once the information is conscious , it can be flexibly routed to other areas according to our current goals.Thus we can name it , evaluate it , memorize it ,or use it to plan the future .Computer simulations of neural networks show that the global neuronal workspace hypothesis generates precisely the signatures that we see in experimental brain recordings .It can also explain why vast amounts of knowledge remain inaccessible to our consciousness ." End quote .

Well, of course computer simulations of those specific neural networks would show the same 'signatures " that he saw in experimental brain recordings lol , that's no evidence for his materialist false belief assumption or hypothesis that consciousness is generated by those specific neural networks : it's a bit like confusing music in CD's with the music itself lol

Nevertheless , Dehaene can't justify his extraordinary jump or leap from the neural correlates of consciousness or NCC to the latter itself , let alone that he could explain to us how consciousness or awareness occurs or arises from neurochemistry .


Besides, it has been proved by many experiments , like the binocular rivalry experiment ,that consciousness is not continuous but discontinuous (Binocular rivalry experiment has been used to be able to differentiate between the brain regions that are involved in conscious or aware perception and between the ones that are not , and hence to try to pinpoint exactly what specific regions of the brain are involved in conscious perception .) :  consciousness  works thus via gaps , or as lunatic Dennett said on the subject : " The discontinuity of consciousness is striking because of the apparent continuity of consciousness " .

Experiments involving experienced meditation practitioners proved  the  fact that meditation and mindfulness can also improve the power of focused attention of people by enabling them to voluntarily hold in place the  binocular rival images they choose to ....the same goes for the  dichotic listening task  experiment where different auditory stimuli are   presented simultaneously , one to each ear....

There are also many forms of waking consciousness , the phenomenal consciousness (the felt consciousness ) , access consciousness , the active and passive consciousness , the 'basic " consciousness, the life consciousness or sentience which is called by western philosophy of mind  "creature consciousness " that pertains to a whole subject of experience , not to the individual states of that subject ,self-consciousness that comes in different forms ...., to mention just those .Take your pick .

To pretend thus that neuroscientists  already understand how the sensory perceptual or gross consciousness or awareness are all about is a misguided and incorrect assumption .

Quote
Quote
Vegetative patients may be more conscious of the world than we think:
Yes; this is the difference between the commonly accepted definition of the condition, and the clinical diagnosis of the condition. Those who demonstrate conscious activity have been misdiagnosed as vegetative (according to Dehaene's usage).

Misdiagnosed ? So, Cambridge scientists conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients ? lol Come on .

Quote
Quote
P.S.: In another context , A cousin of mine who was healthy and then pronounced dead , was almost buried 3 times .
Every time they tried to bury the poor lad , i was told , ( He lives in another country far away from mine ) , he would show signs of life at almost the last moment .

He even started to scream once , i was told , when they were ready to put his coffin into the grave .
It's possible, although unlikely (to paraphrase Lady Bracknell, once would be unfortunate, twice looks like incompetence, and three times smacks of fiction). But, if true, it would be another example of misdiagnosis - the diagnosis of clinical death not corresponding to the patient's actual condition.

I concur . But , it did happen like i told you it did , unfortunately and unbelievably enough .It's hard to believe , but it was true , i was told at least .



*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... Dehaene can't justify his extraordinary jump or leap from the neural correlates of consciousness or NCC to the latter itself , let alone that he could explain to us how consciousness or awareness occurs or arises from neurochemistry .
That's not how science works. Falsifiable hypotheses are made, based on observation, then tested. So far, the hypotheses have not been falsified.

Quote
Besides, it has been proved by many experiments , like the binocular rivalry experiment ,that consciousness is not continuous but discontinuous (Binocular rivalry experiment has been used to be able to differentiate between the brain regions that are involved in conscious or aware perception and between the ones that are not , and hence to try to pinpoint exactly what specific regions of the brain are involved in conscious perception .) :  consciousness  works thus via gaps , or as lunatic Dennett said on the subject : " The discontinuity of consciousness is striking because of the apparent continuity of consciousness " .
Indeed, there are several leading neuroscientists who support this view, and it's not that surprising, given that our vision is also discontinuous. It's yet another demonstration that subjective perception (in this case, of continuity) can be deceptive. It has no substantive effect on Deheane's interpretations.

Quote
To pretend thus that neuroscientists  already understand how the sensory perceptual or gross consciousness or awareness are all about is a misguided and incorrect assumption .
No-one pretends that, but we do know the areas and structures involved, and their basic functions - from observation and experiment.

Quote
Misdiagnosed ? So, Cambridge scientists conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients ? lol Come on .
It's a question of definition. A vegetative state is one lacking conscious awareness, by general definition. If a patient diagnosed as vegetative is found to be consciously aware, he's been misdiagnosed.

Quote
... it did happen like i told you it did , unfortunately and unbelievably enough .It's hard to believe , but it was true , i was told at least .
Lol! You clearly don't believe everything you're told, but you choose to believe that 'hard to believe' anecdote, despite calling it unbelievable... why, because it was a relative?

*

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1461
    • View Profile

What part of the above you can't understand then , Cheryl ?
I can read perfectly fine, thank you, and understand what you've said. I just don't happen to agree, hard as that may be for you to fathom.
You've arrived at the very same answer you started with, and if you're completely happy with that outcome, so be it. I'll leave you to whine about materialism unharassed.

I'm out. 

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg448362#msg448362 date=1420925661]
... Dehaene can't justify his extraordinary jump or leap from the neural correlates of consciousness or NCC to the latter itself , let alone that he could explain to us how consciousness or awareness occurs or arises from neurochemistry .
That's not how science works. Falsifiable hypotheses are made, based on observation, then tested. So far, the hypotheses have not been falsified.


Deheane did reduce by the way the multifaceted forms of waking consciousness to just one of them : the most gross one of them all : access consciousness .

Would you , Deheane or any other materialist scientist for that matter tell us how, on earth , how in Zeus ' name lol, how  the qualitative experiential subjective personal ...consciousness can emerge from the quantitative "impersonal objective "... brain activity that materialist magical inexplicable way ?

None of you can ,obviously , despite all your materialist absurd fancy theories on the subject ( I went almost through  all of them ) that cannot but turn out to be  some sort of simplistic and primitive child's play in disguise under scrutiny , so absurd paradoxical childish  simplistic and false are they deep down ,  simply because consciousness can never be reduced to , equated with or emerge from brain activity , biology , physics and chemistry , or from biological evolution , no way : why can't you , materialists , understand this simple fact ?

You can't understand that simple fact ,simply because you have been confusing materialism with science ,or because you have been equating the former with the latter , that's why , simply because you have been assuming that materialism has been 'scientific " .

More simply put :

Identity theory as well as the emergent property theory regarding the origin nature function and emergence of consciousness are just acts of faith , no scientific theories = untestable+ false  .

Consciousness is neither reducible to nor can it be equated with brain activity , let alone that consciousness can emerge from biology or from biological evolution .

To assumes otherwise is just an act of faith = untestable+ false .

Dehaene 's " Global neuronal workspace " hypothesis or consciousness as just a  brain-wide information sharing process is a bit like the other related theory : consciousness as integrated information = untestable and false , otherwise , how come computers cannot be conscious or aware since they work the same way ? = via global information sharing ...

Not to mention that they replace a mystery by yet another one , replacing the mystery of consciousness by the mystery of information, whatever the latter might mean in this context , that's no explanation thus .

The computer or machine analogy or metaphor regarding the nature , origin , emergence and function of life in general and consciousness and its brain in particular are obviously false , since life cannot but be conscious and aware ,unlike computers or machines , to say just that .

There are also major differences in kind between life and machines or computers as you should know as a biologist .

Quote
Quote
Besides, it has been proved by many experiments , like the binocular rivalry experiment ,that consciousness is not continuous but discontinuous (Binocular rivalry experiment has been used to be able to differentiate between the brain regions that are involved in conscious or aware perception and between the ones that are not , and hence to try to pinpoint exactly what specific regions of the brain are involved in conscious perception .) :  consciousness  works thus via gaps , or as lunatic Dennett said on the subject : " The discontinuity of consciousness is striking because of the apparent continuity of consciousness " .
Indeed, there are several leading neuroscientists who support this view, and it's not that surprising, given that our vision is also discontinuous. It's yet another demonstration that subjective perception (in this case, of continuity) can be deceptive. It has no substantive effect on Deheane's interpretations.

Well, that's a matter of opinion , not a matter of fact . Human perception is deceptive anyway ,so what makes you think that Dehaene 's interpretation is not yet another illusion or an elaborate self-deceit ,since he tries to fit the empirical evidence into his a -priori held materialist production theory regarding the relationship between consciousness and its brain, not the other way around .

In other words :

Any scientific theory should be falsifiable and hence should be either supported corroborated verified predicted reproduced ... by the empirical evidence or rejected by the latter : Deheane 's interpretations of the empirical evidence is delivered by his a -priori held materialist beliefs that shape his own consciousness on the subject , instead of the other way around : that's the most unscientific form of confirmation bias .

There is thus no empirical evidence whatsoever that supports his production or emergent property theory regarding consciousness .

Quote
Quote
To pretend thus that neuroscientists  already understand how the sensory perceptual or gross consciousness or awareness are all about is a misguided and incorrect assumption .
No-one pretends that, but we do know the areas and structures involved, and their basic functions - from observation and experiment.

Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, once again .
What Dehaene delivers on the subject of the nature , emergence and function of consciousness has not been supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever : he just takes for granted  his materialist interpretations of the empirical evidence as the real thing , simply put,by confusing  the forest with the tree that hides the forest  , so to speak  .

Quote
Quote
Misdiagnosed ? So, Cambridge scientists conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients ? lol Come on .
It's a question of definition. A vegetative state is one lacking conscious awareness, by general definition. If a patient diagnosed as vegetative is found to be consciously aware, he's been misdiagnosed.

So, those Cambridge neuroscientists in question were so incompetent as to not be aware of the "fact " that they conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients lol , were so incompetent as not to able to tell the difference between real vegetative patients and between the misdiagnosed ones lol

Come on, dlorde .I know you can do much better than that . lol

Quote
Quote
... it did happen like i told you it did , unfortunately and unbelievably enough .It's hard to believe , but it was true , i was told at least .
Lol! You clearly don't believe everything you're told, but you choose to believe that 'hard to believe' anecdote, despite calling it unbelievable... why, because it was a relative?

Nevermind . I lost sight of the man in question, so to speak, during a period of over 20 years just to hear that story of his alleged multiple "deaths " ,later on . I had no contact with him whatsoever all that time .

I can't verify that story  thus, either way  . I should adopt an agnostic position about it , i guess indeed, a bit like (kidding ) when Joy Jim claimed that he could adopt an agnostic position regarding all interpretations of QM which  are all "equally valid " as he added , just to say later on that the consciousness -based interpretation of QM is no longer  taken seriously by hardly anyone lol  .

It' not that i have been building some scientific theories on that alleged story of my cousin in question thus , like materialist scientists have been doing , in another major context ,  by confusing their materialist beliefs with science or by equating the former with the latter . lol

Oh, man : most of what materialist science has been telling us all regarding the origin of the universe , the nature of life , the origin of life , the evolution of life and much more has to be seriously and radically questioned ,to say the least, you have no idea  .

In other words :

Most of what the majority of scientists ,together with most people, have been taking for granted as science or as "the scientific world view " , without question, since the second half of the 19th century at least and counting , has been just the false materialist dogmatic belief system at the very heart of science , not the latter .

Most scientists thus and most people have been taking the false dogmatic ideological materialist belief system for granted as science or as "the scientific world view " ,all that time and counting .

What a serious and tragic predicament .Unbelievable .

Congratulations, scientist .
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 18:49:12 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg448377#msg448377 date=1420937557]

What part of the above you can't understand then , Cheryl ?
I can read perfectly fine, thank you, and understand what you've said.

Well, it's not that you don't understand what i have been saying all along and on way too many occasions , you just don't want to understand that , so blinded have you been by your own materialist belief system , the one you have been taking for granted as science or as "the scientific world view " , like the majority of scientists today have been doing by the way .

Quote
I just don't happen to agree, hard as that may be for you to fathom.
You've arrived at the very same answer you started with, and if you're completely happy with that outcome, so be it. I'll leave you to whine about materialism unharassed.

The fact that materialism is false ,including all its extensions ,including all materialist theories of mind , is not a matter of opinion, lady : it is a matter of fact .

Quote
I'm out.

Well, that's too bad then . Your own choice .I respect that . But that won't make the above mentioned fact go away anyway .

That won't make the fact go away that science has to reject materialism and move on beyond it : that's what science usually does anyway  when it stumbles upon anomalies such as consciousness that explode in its scientific face ,and hence make science question its prevailing 'wisdom " of the moment .That's the only way science can progress :

 Imagine with me for a moment that Planck's work,for example,  was rejected by the mainstream scientific community , we would still be stuck within the approximately correct and fundamentally false classical deterministic mechanical Newtonian world view upon which materialism was built , ironically enough .

In fact , as materialists yourselves, guys , you are really still stuck within that false classical world view anyway . Congratulations .

I don't recall how many times i wanted to leave this forum,since i saw/ see no point in continuing this discussion ,simply because none of you , guys , was/is ready yet to consider the simple fact that materialism is false , let alone ready to change your minds on the subject .

Take care , best wishes,lady  .Thanks for all your valuable contributions .You've been a major and valuable contributor to this thread and certainly the most open-minded one . Cheers.

Science will be forcing you to become even more open-minded ,whether you would like it or not , if you live long enough to witness that inevitable fact .

It is only a matter of time thus before science ,all sciences for that matter , rejects materialism ,otherwise science will  remain just a dogmatic ideology or just a secular dogmatic materialistic atheistic religion deep down ,and hence loose its credibility and reliability as a valid source of knowledge ....

« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 19:25:18 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1763
    • View Profile
Final thoughts , very quickly then  :

There is a lot more to say about the following , but i will have to leave it at that then :

Materialist science is in fact so primtitive and so fundamentally false ,so fundamentally way behind , thousands of years behind some aspects of some ancient wisdom , behind some aspects of human expériences , knowledge and wisdom, as to assume that all is matter ,thanks to materialism,  that all can be reduced to just matter or to just material ,physical or biological processes or  causes  :

So, You , all your joys , sorrows , your sense of self , your sense of free will , your thoughts , your dreams, imagination, creativity , love , beliefs and the rest are just some sort of sexy "ritual " lol strip-tease dances , oscillations or vibrations of your neurons or neurochemistry ,as some savant -idiot scientist said on the subject in other words of his (Francis Crick ) : absurd and paradoxical non-sense .

There are also a lots of "scientific " fairy tales regarding the origin of the universe , the nature of life , the origin of life , the evolution of life ....thanks to materialism ,that one is extremely perplexed by the fact that materialist 'science " is called science lol , seriously .

Materialism has been just imprisoning science within its false materialist theory of the nature of reality , and hence has been making science deliver a highly distorted and fundamentally false version of the nature of reality, to say the least , while holding the free inquiry spirit of science back by making it  explore only the false materialist version of the nature of reality and hence preventing science from going beyond that , despite the fact that naturalist science , its naturalist methodology and its naturalist epistemology do go beyond materialism and can be either dualist , idelalist monist or even theistic  .

Science should in fact neither be materialist nor otherwise , science should be metaphysically neutral , but that remains just a naive idealistic utopia so far , since science is just a human social activity ,and to some extent just a cultural one as well ( see how the Eurocentric ethnocentric and exclusive materialism has been equated with science for relatively so long now and counting .),so the old Cartesian dichotomy between the observer and the observed , between the subjective thus and the objective is false : there is no such thing as the independent observer or independent observed , they are inseparably and inescapably intertwined with each other  .

All scientific discoveries though , all scientific progress , all scientific material and technological advances have been the results of applying the scientific method by materialist and non-materialist scientists alike , so all that has been having absolutely nothing to do with materialism that's just a false conception of nature , a false belief , a philosophy , an outdated and supreseded 19th century ideology or world view that was built upon the approximately correct and fundamentally false classical mechanical deterministic Newtonian world view .

It's about time that science gets rid of materialism and for good , the sonner the better ,for the benefit and  progress of  both science and humanity as a whole .

It's about time for a post-materialistic science as the subject matter of this thread by the way .

P.S.: The above was /is no whining about materialism, Cheryl : the above is simply just facts , undeniable ones at that , that is .

Denying the latter won't make it go away either thus.

Have fun with your 'scientific " materialist délusions , guys then . Thank you all  for your valuable contributions , time , relative knowledge , and energy , appreciate indeed .Best wishes to all of you . See ya all in another life , so to speak .Cheers.
« Last Edit: 11/01/2015 21:21:41 by DonQuichotte »

*

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1441
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
So, those Cambridge neuroscientists in question were so incompetent as to not be aware of the "fact " that they conducted that simple test on misdiagnosed vegetative patients lol , were so incompetent as not to able to tell the difference between real vegetative patients and between the misdiagnosed ones lol

No. It's really very simple. I'll explain one last time. There were a number of patients who had previously been diagnosed as being in a vegetative state. The neuroscientists gained access to them and carried out their tests, finding some of them to show characteristic signs of conscious awareness, contrary to the diagnosis they had been given.

Now I'm out.